tv [untitled] December 6, 2013 8:30pm-9:01pm PST
or submittal requirements. and it's really to identify what i have heard frustration from the planning commission or to address the frustration i have heard from the planning commission. that members of the public are not aware that when they send a correspondence, generally via e-mail. to all the commissioners or to one commissioner and addressed to all commissioners, that i should be cc'd for it to be a part of the public record. i know that the commissioners identify that and are diligent in forwarding me that cc. but to get in the rules for the benefit of the public to how make it a part of the public record. after reviewing this section, i had another suggestion in changing the first sentence to be addressed advanced.
corspendence in advance must be received by the secretary than the day before. and this is for the logistics for the hearing, i am here trying to get set. and it's not fair to you to receive corspendence an hour before the hearing begins. for the benefit of the public if you want to consider that, they should get it the day before the hearing is held. this is not to say that someone submits something on the day of the hearing, it's not part of the public record. it doesn't always get in your folder, and for example, a correspondence that i received this morning may not be in this hearing. it will be a part of the public
record and you will see at the next hearing. however it doesn't do that person trying to get their message across to you. and then adding correspondences. >> sorry, commissioner moore. >> i have a question, mr. ionin, that is when you get copied on the material and it immediately goes to staff planners. so when he or she presents and they cannot say there are no comments received on the case. the important thing is to get this conversation in the loop of the project. >> that's correct. >> okay, should that be expressed to you or assumed? it's part of your responsibility to immediately notify the staff planners on any correspondence pro or con? >> it becomes part of the record and goes in your correspondence folder. >> that the staff planners see. >> yes.
>> commissioner borden. >> i was going to say this might be what you explain about the public record and something to put in the footnote or on the agenda. to explain to people that all correspondence is part of the public record, however if it's not received prior to the hearing, the commissioners will not have it physically but it's part of their correspondence. i think that's -- people get up here and i sent it this morning, why don't you have it. >> excellent idea, commissioner borden. and suggesting further on submittals and correspondence to the commission on the same day should be directly at the hearing. it addresses the e-mail correspondence and sponsor and operation brief that wants to be a part of the packet in advance of the hearing that we require
15 copies in pdf version to be a part of your packet. the other substantive changes under discretionary review items. changing some of the terminology from simple to abbreviated and complex to full, as the terminology that we use today. the most significant change is under hearing procedures. under "b." a presentation by the dr requester's team is suggested for your consideration. and team is defined as the sponsor or their designee or lawyers and architectures and engineers or other advisors similar to what you have under your standard cases. the dr proceedings would follow the same procedures that your standard cases currently do. there are no changes in -- >> commissioner moore, sorry. >> i would like to make a
comment here as we are going through this document. i will make suggestions regarding submittals. some of which i would like to have referenced in the running body of this text of what we are expecting. it will be repeatedly noted but i will summarize my comments when we come to a section to appear for the first time in this area. >> commissioner suantonini. >> in section "b," mandatory is misspelled. >> we will correct that, thank you. >> and yeah, i think this seems make sense to me. that it would allow a group presentation from what i understand set aside time for a group if they so choose. and then those same people can't
come up and comment in public comment if they were a part of the group as we do with a conditional use situation. >> that's correct. okay. the next section actually misspelled mandatory discretionary review never was in the appendix and this is a benefit to the public. we haven't changed anything it wasn't well established in your current rules and regulations. >> commissioner moore. >> i know we are not doing editing of typos here. as you are coming to your section "d," standard case conditional use, could you then for the first time that most people see the word cu, than the conditional use, and that is capital c, and capital u. >> certainly. >> so here's another substantive change under cases.
i am getting rid of the term standard, they are all cases, conditional uses and 309's. i am suggesting that the hearing procedures reduce the presentation of the project sponsor from 15 to 10 minutes unless they request in advance an extended period of 15 minutes. to help expedite your hearing procedures and times. and generally that's what the chair provides for most presentations today. is anywhere between 5-10 minutes. >> commissioner moore. >> while i like kind of focused presentations has anybody of the public who stands in front of us and presents more complicated projects been asked to comment on this?
i could go either way. but sometimes when it's necessary to give full background and reasons why and plus explaining the merits of a building. it's difficult to do that under compressed circumstance that is measured by your clock. rather than knowing that you make a concise statement and you use your own ability of speaking to do so. i am afraid that we are putting potentially constraints on people without being in their shoes to comment on this. i would like to hear from some people on the outside who are presenting to us how they feel about that. >> the reason i'm suggesting this amendment to your rules. because people that read the rules say, i thought i got 15 minutes when the buzzer goes off after 5 or 10. that's the reason. >> commissioner antonini. >> i agree with commissioner
moore. i felt before that it said not to exceed 15. and now it says not to exceed 10. i guess you have allowed for a written application for a longer presentation. so it could work either way for me. i mean i want to make sure that we get the complete,some of the projects we see are complex and it takes 15 minutes for the architect and project sponsor to present. we can always ask them back. i want to be sure that the ability is there for them to have the longer presentation if they so inclined. the same with the opposition has that opportunity too, giving 72 hours notice. >> commissioner borden. >> i did want to note that it seems when we get the presentations it's the
architect's time that gets cut off. and that's a lot of times the crux of the presentation. either we would specify that we want them to focus -- unless we change the rules that time on architecture. i think in general if we give it 15 minutes, which i think is fine. too many times people spend all the latitudes to the project and the architect is cut short. maybe part of the issue is reframing what for projects what the crux of the presentation. and maybe part of that is what commissioner moore is giving in guidance in terms of drawings. for us the biggest frustration is the thing that we care about the most is the thing that gets cut short. i don't know if it's necessarily an issue of time but specificity on our part of what have is
important. >> thank you, commissioner borden, i appreciate that. >> commissioner sugaya. >> if you can't say it in 10 minutes, you are not going to be able to say it in 15, i don't think. we are faced in the architectural world making presentations on specific time limits. when you go in to speak on an interview, they give you five or 10 minutes to get the project. you have to practice and you condense your presentation into whatever time frame there is. the longer there is, of course you will take all the time in the world to add things and whatever. and i see oral presentations as supplementary to the materials we have received in our packets. which are obviously much more detailed or should be than what is presented. so the orals i think are kind of a summary statement. and maybe there are things that
have come up in the meantime when the packets have gone out and they thought of other things. but i think those can fit well. and if there is an opportunity to ask for more time, that's fine. >> commissioner moore. >> what we mostly have on larger co presentation is corporate and legal and not all are balanced their weight with each other. and i agree with commissioner borden and perhaps we can capture or encourage to be concise and to the point rangeing from a minimum of 10 to maximum of 15 minutes. and people have the ability to practice by themselves. when you have entities coming together, they don't practice together. they have a role. and each of them has to sell their thing. and depends on how they feel about the balances act of those minutes. it is what it is, and architecture, i don't want to
say that needs to be longest but gets shortened. >> if i can make a suggestion, perhaps to address both concerns. maybe it says not to exceed 10 minutes unless there is a written application in advance. so it's clear that it's 10 but there is an option to extend. >> i think we have been fair to extend more time in cases that is warranted or halfway through their presentation. >> certainly. commissioners i apologize. if we could go back to discretionary reviews. i forgot to mention the suggestion under plan submittal. there is a suggestion to improve them by identifying existing and proposed conditions being clearly diminitioned. we have issues with that in the past or that section referred to the guidelines, which is a document created by the planning
department. that spells out exactly the types of information that plans need and clearly enforcing that rule by staff. >> commissioner moore. >> i think as we are touching on this larger issue, this is the moment or it might occur independently. i believe at this moment there are nine places within the department where drawing submittals are described. however they are depending on where they occur not exactly all speaking to the same reference which you are referencing, and i appreciate that. so i can do that now or ask that we discuss the subject independently what is going on right now. as you go through the body of the document. but i have marked up nine places where the department has referenced these things. and i am suggesting having worked through this how we might streamline and unify the
language and the reference to each other. in order to balance what ultimately is used, what you are already doing. and that would be done consistently in a manner. there is no misinterpretation of what we are trying to get. that is basically all what you are getting. >> okay. >> we could defer that but you mentioning it and i appreciate it. and this is one beginning point to pick it up. >> all right. then moving on to page 4, the appendices. these again are -- oh, i am sure will be of interest. the term complicated cases, i am suggesting to be stricken and replaced with volumous and complicated is difficult to define. we have struggled with what a
complicated case is. they can be short staff reports or on small projects, those that are larger projects. and/or have a lot of reading material. generally speaking staff will consult with the officers of the commission at their monday afternoon meeting about particular cases that should be forwarded two weeks in advance. it has been the practice of the department to forward large documents to you weeks in advance. and certainly other cases that the department feels is complicated two weeks in advance. but that's entirely up to you. >> okay, great interest in this subject, commissioner borden. >> i wouldn't use the word exceptional. because we use the word exceptional or extraordinary in
certain cases whether it's a zoning administrator variance or discretionary view, if you use that word in this way, it's making a judgment that conflicts with our policies and procedures about what cases are exceptional or extraordinary. so i wouldn't use the word exceptional. >> commissioner antonini. >> i agree with commissioner borden on that. but the other thing that commissioner moore was referencing earlier and we frequently see. somewhere in the rules we should mention that project sponsors are required to have their plans approved by the planner assigned in the case in reference to the details required by the commission before submission to
the commission. i am saying that often the big projects almost always have extraordinary detail. but sometimes they don't have it. but we even see smaller cases where there is no rendering of what the project is going to look like. and the detail of the architectural plans are real sketchy. and we end up continuing a lot of cases based on the inadequacy of the sponsor to do these basic things. that's something that the individual planner will have to deal with. and i think it should be that way. we have had cases sent back because of the lack of the obvious detail. i think we all want to see what it's going to look like in color. after the project is finished. in regards to the facade of a project where the facade is affected. that's too much detail to put in. but some reference of the rules
to necessity for the case planner to approve the plans and they meet the qualifications that are necessary as far as detail for the standards of the commission. >> commissioner moore. >> if i may, not following up on that but getting back to the original question of volumous otherwise exceptional. i would like to remind you of a (inaudible) with each other and i gave you a package that was volumous and it was 50 pages of a response, it clearly was a waste of paper. but by definition it would be defined by volumous and it isn't. so i myself do not have the answer of how to capture the bridge of otherwise exceptional or volumous unless we invent a
word. or abbreviation that may be voe, or something like that. it's a difficult thing. i don't have a webster, perhaps the city attorney knows of a word that we have never used. i am not putting you on the spot. we are trying to find a description for something that requires additional attention and should be sent to us with more advance notice. i am out of words on that one. >> (inaudible). >> someone could just stuff -- >> i guess commissioner's moore concern with volumous. if there are a bunch of form letters signed by 1,000 people, by definition it would be volumous. that is not something that we would forward to you two weeks in advance. it's left to the discretion of the planning director and the officers. >> why don't we say that?
rather than trying to define it. the discreation of the officers and director -- >> and me if you like. yeah. it's the way that it would work anyway. you are never going to be able to define it precisely. leave it up to the discretion. >> and then maybe fold it into under the cases section. that certain packets will be forwarded two weeks in advance. >> commissioner antonini. >> i like the word intricate as a sin -- scincinnatsin -- syno. volumous could be different to meet the standard.
if you want to capture it in a word, i think that intricate may be good or challenging could be two words used for describing. >> (inaudible). >> commissioner sugaya. >> yeah, i think you guys could go back and figure out who is going to be in the decision-making seat. you would think staff wise it would be mr. rayem and perhaps the secretary and staff planner. who ever would be appropriate. because these things happen kind of ahead of time. and if you want to bring in the president or vice president, you can. but -- rather than try to define the whole thing. just like the director said. whether it's complicated or volumous or whatever, it doesn't matter to me. as long as there a process set up. >> we will give it some thought. >> commissioner moore.
>> that might require looking at as for this commission, it shouldn't be based on the recommendation or discussion with the president and the vice preside president, this is subject to the rules, and they had provided and didn't get it early enough. there is a responsibility that relies with the president and vice president to do so. >> absolutely. moving on, commissioners. under policy or major project of presentations. i have suggested to extend that time frame. i found that oftentimes that presentations by other agencies regarding policy matters or our own staff that this would include exceeds 15 minutes. it just seems to go on.
instead of by rule cutting them off at 15, they can go up to 20. these are for obviously major policy issue,. and then finally, we never had a section on procedures for ceqa fields for mitigated declarations and those appeals before you. there was never any procedures. so i added this section for what we have been doing, which is providing 10 minutes to the appellant. that's it, really. the city attorney is suggesting that we provide time to the city attorney -- excuse me to the project sponsor of the mitigated declaration. but to me it seemed like it was staff document. but we can certainly provide time for the project sponsor. >> deputy city attorney, i would
recommend in keeping with the procedure that the board of supervisorsa follows for appeals of eir's that you have time for the staff to make a presentation. and for the appellant. but then you provide some time for the project sponsor that is a set amount of time. to speak on the appeal. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i have a question about the use of the term, powerpoint or design. i mean a lot of times there isn't a powerpoint presentation. and i am not sure what it means by design in the context of ceqa appeals. >> i might have cut and pasted this. actually i did cut and paste this from the previous section. >> yes. >> okay. i will get rid of that, yeah.
commissioner antonini. >> i know early in the revisions, mr. ionin, you mentioned exceptions in terms of conditional uses. and i think in terms of ceqa, i remember a couple of instances where there has been questioning as to what actually was going on with the ceqa document. the document was not certified but it was not rejected. and i think that because the commission had made suggestions as to the nature of things that could be done. it was taken up at a later time without a recirculation. this is a very detailed thing. but i am not sure that we have to deal with anything like that in our rules to make it clear to the public, it may be too discretionary. i see that the city attorney is nodding no. it's too individualize to talk
about that issue in the rules. >> are you referring to failed motions? >> yeah, failed motions that did not get four votes for certification but did not get four votes for rejection. and there were a couple of instances there were times when it was decided, the attorney's opinion was that there were recommendations made by commissioners to be able to have a modified ceqa document come back to us. without a complete ces recirculation. >> are you referring to when you have a mitt -- mitigated appeal. >> i can think of different instances, the appeal has to get four votes, and if not four
votes, it's like a dr, fails. i think it's more in terms of an eir. >> an eir has to be planned by the plan ning commission, and i not the four votes it would not be denied. >> there are cases where recirculation was not called for. even though the original document was not certified. >> that's certainly true. recirculation isn't mentioned though in your rules. >> yeah, so we don't have to get into that? >> no, would recommend not getting into that detail. there are different circumstances. if you have an eir in front of you, you can send it back to staff about what sections need to be changed. and that may or may not trigger
recirculation. and if that does trigger recirculation is a decision that ero would make. i wouldn't recommend going into that detail in your rules. i don't think it's necessary. and it may be contrary to what you want to do in the specific instance. >> great. >> commissioner board rdeborden. >> i have a procedural question. for this document it will be put on the website. when we have it put on the website, hyper linked and when you reference submittals and someone click to other parts of the website so that people would know what we are referring to. i think that would make it helpful. i would be happy to help. and if people are talking about submittals and the planned bu
bulletin that is developed. and that will make it easier and generally direct people to the rules and know everything they need to know. >> that's a great idea. >> commissioner moore. >> just a moment to talk about submittals or to give you a brief idea what it is i have been looking at. the issue of submittals has been around seven years and this time that i see we have the ability to weigh in on submittals as we find ourselves bewildered by the large range of submittals. and as i said nine places in your kit of tools. many of them are a great beginning for us to use as reference, particularly as a planned submittal. as we go to theci